Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] So, good afternoon. It is 12:00 on um uh dece Wednesday, December 17th, and um this is the Athens City Planning Commission meeting, which I will call to order. Um the first order of business is to establish a quorum and we have all of our members here um at this time. So we do in fact have a quorum. Um the mayor has a meeting that he's going to need to scoot out for before this meeting probably ends. And so hopefully we'll get far enough along and get most all the uh the work that we need to do done before he has to scoot out of here. But um we do have that. Um I would like to ask anybody in the audience who is going to speak to raise their hand and u say I do um right hand um if um if you if you're going to speak I ask that you that you um commit to the fact that you will tell the truth all the whole truth is to the best of your knowledge and if you will do that say I will

thank thank you um the Uh next thing the next thing with the the the community members or people that are here I would there's a signup sheet up there and so if you get if if you're going to speak when you come to the podium take a minute or two to to sign sign in so that we have a record of those that have spoken. Thank you. Um so the next order of business is to deal with the minutes. We haven't met um formally since October 1st. Um, we I think everybody has the minutes in their packet and uh hopefully they've had a chance to take a look. Um, are there uh I would entertain a motion to approve or uh and then we can talk talk about it if there's any changes that need to be made um uh following the the motion and and uh second.

A motion to approve. Okay. Is there a second? I second. So, are there any questions or or possibly any corrections that anybody sees there? It has been a long time. It has. Mr. Chair, I I I I don't have any correction to the minutes. The minutes are all correct as as to where they are. I do have an update related to the annexation, which was one of the conditions for for um our approval of title 41. Um I can either do that now or we can do it when we get down to communications um or announcements and other business, whatever you would prefer. Let let's do that under communications.

Okay. So So uh we have a motion and a second. Um all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented for October 1st say I I. Any opposed?

Any abstensions? No. So it you were not here. Okay. So it passes 4 nothing or 4. Um so we have um one case listed. It's case 25-08, which is the neighborhood corridor overlay zone in its proposed language. It's taxed to be adopted by the the city. It's under a case um to give us the option if we would care to approve it today, we can go ahead and approve it today. We can wait. Normally we tend to wait but if um but if folks are comfortable with u the work that has been done and we've had several several community meetings at least two community meetings to look at this and and uh there's been a great deal of work done by our our planner uh Miss Jennings and and uh structure points and so if we choose to approve we can we can take it to a vote today. Um, with that said, um, I would, uh, turn to to Miss Jennings to go ahead and open discussions about what we have before us.

Sure. [snorts] So, um, in your packet, you have the draft version of our proposed language. [snorts] Um, oh, I guess I shouldn't. Yeah. So, um, myself and David Baird with American Structure Point worked on drafting this language and, um, I think we're both very excited about how the code came together. Um, David does have a brief presentation, um, that kind of summarizes the process and re-reviews the public input we received um, and then kind of summarizes what we ended up proposing in the code. Um, and just for reference within the larger chunk of the code, this is in title 21, the zoning code, and within um, chapter or 23, my bad. Um, within uh, the permitted uses section um, under all of the other zones, there is a [snorts] category for the overlay zones. And so we have that uh, this proposed code within that section of code. Um, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask myself after um, David's presentation, but he should cover a lot of the information. So,

great. Thank you, David.

Uh, well, thank you for having me back again. Um, it's always a pleasure to be here. I, um, really enjoyed walking around downtown this morning. It's just such a great community. Uh, so um, yeah. Um, what I'm going to go over is just kind of a little bit. For some of you, this may be a little bit of a review, but we always have a few new people here, so we always kind of like to set the stage a little bit with some of the intro slides. So, apologize for those of you who have seen some of this uh to uh already, but we we want to start out with saying, okay, what is an actual overlay zone? So, one of the big questions we got at first when we started this was, does that necessarily mean that it's more regulation? Um, and the answer to that is it doesn't necessarily have to be. It can be slightly different regulation or slightly different regulations. There's no requirement that it be more or that it be less. So, it just changes a little bit the scope of it. So, you have a base zoning district, which every piece of property has a base zoning district [snorts] um that's attached to it. But an overlay district can be kind of as it's termed o overlays these these base districts and may uh and will change some of the requirements slightly regardless of what the base zoning district is. Um so um with that uh we tend to get a question well is this new is this is do you have currently have this? Uh so there are two existing um overlay districts, overlay zones that do exist today within the city of Athens. Um those are the uptown historic district aimed at historic preservation and your welad protection area which is a water quality. Um the purpose of that uh so really some of the key reasons that we're looking at this is for to improve neighborhood commercial um improve the walkability of these areas

and allow for the growth of small-scale retail service businesses uh and then also just prioritizing and creating the landscape. I think the way to think of it is there's certain areas of town that were originally uh very similar to what you have in downtown, but over time that is kind of eroded a little bit. And so it's it's it's really a movement to try to bring that back because uh a lot of these uh area that we're looking at again are are places that are are there many buildings that are built to the front which you you see when I say that it's right on the sidewalk, but not all of them are. So, [snorts] we'll get into some of the specific requirements here in a minute, but um this is an image that I've shown just to give people kind of an idea of what we're looking at. It doesn't necessarily have to be um like the the photo on the left where it is retail. Um these a lot of the things we're encouraging through this is mixeduse building. So, retail on the first floor and [clears throat] uh potentially residential on on the second. Um, so to give you um just a summary of of what we've done thus far, we've we've reviewed the city's existing code, the city's existing planning documents. We've uh spoken with staff. We've gone through that process. Then we had uh surveys and public input meetings. Um and then we got to where we were able to draft the overlay [snorts] zone. And we held a public meeting last night. And I have a slide coming up about kind of the summary of generally what we heard. Um but at first I want to go through the responses that we had online uh as well as the the public open house. Um we put into um a document which is the public engagement summary report. Um I'm just really going to touch the surface today as to the the heart of

what's in this. Um but it is available for anyone to review. We we also have the hard what I call the hard data which has all the comments everything. So that's an additional item. This is the summary and then there's the the full document I guess is a good way to put it. Um so um we had included in this we had stakeholder sessions which were open to anyone. Um but these were the people who signed up and specifically wanted to talk talk with us. So, we did have some one-on- ones, we had social media post, uh, and like I said, we had the public open forum. So, what we did with all of the comments is we broke them down into different categories and even subcategories from there. Um, a lot of what we heard was very positive toward what we thought we would hear as far as what people were were looking for. Um but it generally speaking what we heard matches what you see in the regula proposed regulations today. So getting into the the details of the draft ordinance um some things that are important you can read through the all the language yourself but we'll just point through some of the key things here. Um, [snorts] so a lot of times an overlay district really changes some of the base zoning as far as what land uses are permitted and prohibited. This is just really a summary of of of what has changed so or what would change should this overlay district be enacted. Um, the first floor residential would be prohibited under the current draft. Um, and one of the concerns we had uh from a number of the business community was that there were multiple buildings on some of the corridors that were that are potentially uh being proposed where there's a vacant building but yet some of the existing

requirements would not allow for that vacant building to be opened up. And so that's one of the things that I heard that's just really I think frustrating for a lot of people in the community to say, "Hey, I I had something that I felt was going to be positive for the community." There was support for it, but there was a regulation that um that was there. And one of those things was the distance requirements uh for from restaurants. So, we would put in there that if you're in the overlay district, um there's certain distance requirements from residential um which would not uh be which would be exempt from those in in these standards. [snorts] Um and then drive-thru um would also be prohibited um under this under the the current draft building orientation. Uh really this goes while it would be a regulation, it really just goes to the the way that buildings were were built um years ago, which is uh basically your front door comes in from uh a street. Um so it's really just kind of making sure that that's the style of development moving forward when buildings are replaced. Uh so [clears throat] parking is probably the biggest item that we've had the uh most conflicting views um to date. I would say it's really the only issue where there's people who have very very different views on this. Uh and so if you go into the public engagement report, I think we had uh nine people who said on these corridors they thought there needed to be less parking and I think there were seven who said more parking. Um what I found is that what we found is that people who had these feelings also felt them very strongly. Uh and it didn't matter which side they were on. Uh so um that's one thing we we've we've we probably need to have a discussion here

even even more in depth. But what I'm going to do right now is is just to discuss what is in the current draft uh so that everyone's on the same page with that. So in the current draft, if it is an existing building, they that existing building would be exempt from parking requirements as it's currently drafted. Um this was again one of the biggest frustrations that we heard from the business community a and from uh many people that were were there was that hey there's an existing building. Why do I have to go through these additional things to find a um an onsite person who can lease my a property for a um a parking spot three doors down or or something like that? They just felt, you know, this this has been built. It's there, you know, why can't we utilize it? So, that was the thought there. Now also um what we have in the current draft again the current draft is that for new buildings parking would be required in the back of the building and that for new buildings it'd be a 50% reduction on the amount. So if you take the the typical parking table that you have for it's across the city. If if it said for instance that two parking spaces are required, it would mean if you were in the overlay district only one parking place would be required. And then there are also reductions as it goes to um if you are by a bus stop or if you um are willing to invest in a bus shelter, which I know is something that um I believe we've had some requests for from the public is to have a little more um uh I would say alternative infrastructure for for bus and you know a little bit nicer seating area for people who are using the trans the

transit. Uh so that's again what's in the the the draft today. Um there's also bicycle parking requirements um that uh are are in it and making it clear that that that's up at the front of the building. Uh sidewalks, we do have an an a minimum 8 foot sidewalk requirement. We did have uh a few people that asked last night. Well, there are times where the existing is nowhere near eight feet and I don't know if that can physically be accommodated. Um in those certain circumstances, um we would recommend that go to a variance process. Uh if you found that that was just continually coming to a variance process, you you might want to amend that. But having said that, the ideal here would be that eight that eight foot width. And one of the the reasons for that also is is it's not, you know, you we I'll talk about later. In fact, I'll just kind of skip ahead a couple slides to um outdoor dining. Um and so this is one of the reasons for the the larger amount is if you have outdoor dining, you still want to have space for pedestrians to pass. Um you know, it's very I and I've seen this on a few occasions where cities have permitted outdoor dining, but it's so far to the curb that it is people almost have to go out into traffic to get around it. And so that can be problematic. So that's why we kept with the the eight uh standard. Um let's go back here. Uh street trees. Um, this is kind of an idealistic version of what you would see, but you want to have that between uh the the public rideway and um and the walking area. So, there'd be certain standards with that. Uh, one thing that

would be prohibited um as written today, and we would highly recommend this, is to have no pole signs within these areas. These are these signs are very much automobile oriented and what we're trying to go for here is a pedestrianoriented signage. Uh so the example you see on the left which we refer to as a projecting sign would be permitted uh and the pole signs would be prohibited. And it's it's it's interesting to me I I I've worked in communities that don't prohibit the poll sign and over time it just becomes very obsolete. Um and so because really if if it's a truly walkable environment, people aren't looking up to the pole sign. They're they're seeing what they're seeing right in front of them. So there's some real um reasons and benefits for that. Also, there's some lighting requirements. Uh we did we got a number of there are some comments in the summary about people that said you know I I really appreciate that the city particularly on stimson has put in infrastructure but um you know I I still don't necessarily feel all that safe walking so that the outdoor lighting uh is a um is is is benefits for that. We also had requirements for just basically what you could have a recessed entry canopy or porch. uh and make sureing that making sure that that is ADA compliant. Uh window requirements. Again, this is really to make the buildings mesh and fit with the older style buildings. Um you know, we we see a lot where in these areas that there'll be something that's new and it kind of it's it's out of character and unfortunately that old kind of character that you have in these areas kind of erodess. And so that's one of the reasons for this is to try to try to keep with that. Um, we already went

through the outdoor dining open space. Uh, something kind of unique that we have in here is for this would apply for buildings that are that are a 10,000 ft and above. Um, so usually a good gauge for that. We had a few questions. Well, what exactly is 10,000 ft? Your typical Walgreens is about a 10,000 square foot building. So think about that. Now, they've gotten a little bit larger over the last few years. I will say that much, but your kind of typical drugstore um chain drugstore is a kind of a good perception for people. Um so, if it is larger than that, um there would be open space requirements and we've got those listed down. So, it would kind of feel like a pocket park. Um that's one of the things that really kind of brings character to the to the area. And we did get a qu we did have gotten questions that would this be p public or private. It could be either. It could be either. It just depends upon the owner uh of it. But it it it definitely uh is a way to you know create a real environment in your downtown area. So um with that one of the main questions we've got is okay what next steps? and the chair did an excellent job of explaining that it's on the agenda today if you wanted to adopt it. [snorts] Um, but the process here is we have the text today and we're we're we're um we've thought through this with with Megan and I have and um our belief is to get the text correct first and then look to apply it to certain locations in the city. So that's why you see you only have the text. Um the procedural process, of course, you're used to this where it's the planning commission makes a recommendation to the the city council. But [snorts] with the caveat of the text being uh brought

forward first, uh an excellent question which we were talking before the meeting was um does that mean that any overlay area that this is applied to has to go back through the process? And the answer to that is yes. So even if the texts were uh permitted or excuse me were adopted at the next city council meeting, it would still not apply to any specific areas until it went back through the process. Um so I'm going to give just a real s real quick summary of what we heard from last night's meeting. Uh overall um very positive. Um, we did get feedback um that is in uh that Megan has now. Um, we asked people to write that down on specifics. What I would say overall it was very much just more questions more like what exactly does this mean? Um, you know, I'm concerned about this word. Would it apply to this? It was really more like taking a little deeper dive into some of the the draft language, which is very common when we get to this point uh in a community. But I think everyone I don't think I heard any negative comments. At least I didn't. I I want to make sure Megan you didn't. But I didn't have any negative comments to me as far as the intent. The That's one thing that was very different from the last meeting. We had a lot of questions. Why is this necessary? Why are we doing this? Why is this? This time around, what we heard was, "I understand the reasoning." Um, you know, maybe you should tweak it this way. I have an idea that isn't in here. A lot of that, but um there was not a feeling of of why are we doing this, which we we had some people the first time around we had a public meeting who were very supportive, but we also had some that were um were questioning the the

reasons. So, I think everyone's we're I'm hopeful that as a community there's more understanding and reasoning behind why why this is needed, why why it's being recommended? Um, but that is the summary that we we received from from last night. So, is it Megan? Is there anything you want to add to that? Not in regards to last night. No.

Okay. I want to make sure that I'm uh that was the feedback I received, but we, you know, haven't had a chance to delve deep into that yet. So, um, so with that, uh, I just open it up for a question and answer. Um, if you guys have any questions, either it was from last night, the process as a whole, uh, how certain sections are drafted, um, you know, we any questions that you have, I'm I'm here to take. Yes, Mayor. Yeah, I I'd like to get mine out before I have to Yeah, sure. Um, I'm looking through the actual language for the chapter 23.04.

And maybe the easiest way to solve what I'm thinking about is to put a a a clause in here somewhere that speaks to artisans. I'm looking at things like welding. Well, what if someone wants to open up someone like David Griezmeer were to move into Athens and decide I want to have an artistic welding shop? Um, you know, or another one that kind of strikes me and I think I know what was behind it back in the day is the printing or related trade back when someone had a big noisy printing press. Well, that's not reality anymore.

That's correct. Um, and so things like that, you know, I I I don't think is necessary to have in there. But more importantly, you know, not that we're going to have a foundry come into Athens, but, you know, [laughter] I don't know what you would call Keith Chapman's jewelers around the corner where he actually makes jewelry and his doing metal work inside there to create what he creates. Would that be not permissible in this overlay zone? I mean, it wouldn't qualify as a foundry. It would it would You know what I'm saying? Let's put something in there at least to think through with the rest of the planning commission

to where if someone because I would like to attract artisans who want to do interesting [clears throat] things into something that we're talking about with this overlay zone. Mhm. Um

Yeah. And so that did come up last night. Um a few similar questions like that. It kind of goes along with the clarifications like maybe we need to modify this a little bit and kind of like what I was saying. Um I think the intent was not to preclude what you just listed. Um it really all goes back to what the definition is in the main part of the zoning code. Um but what I would say is that um that's really good feedback and that needs to be incorporated and clarified uh to ensure that you're not precluding that or even that there's an argument that you're could potentially preclude that if that makes sense.

Yeah. I'd rather us get this so solid that someone isn't going to have to ask for a variance to put in my artistic welding shop or whatever.

No, and I I agree completely with those comments. Uh, and I um, you know, I think those are those are very that what you just said is very similar to a lot of the other comments that we've received thus far is, hey, I think we need to tweak this a little bit. I love the way you're going, but we still need a few edits is and so again, it was on your agenda potentially to to adopt it. But I think based on what we've received thus far far that's generally been the fallback is or not fall back but the overall. So I think I think where we're probably at Megan and correct me if I'm wrong but is taking this latest round of comments making some redline changes providing um in a more detailed format the the definitions that connect to the zoning code and then maybe bringing it back at the next meeting. Would you agree with that?

Yeah. I'll just add this list of prohibited uses we pulled from our heavy industrial type um our manufacturing zone and with our upcoming code audit all of these would be combined into heavy industrial definition. So I think having our existing code definitions of these uses would help provide context to the scale and then we can talk with code too about the artist scale, the neighborhood scale application of some of these skills and whether or not there are other land uses in our code right now that exist and encompass that scale of utilizing those skills that are appropriate and wouldn't be prohibited um from the overlay zone. So,

we'll just have to look at the definitions again, but I just wanted to kind of give the background on where we pulled these uses from. It was from our heavy industrial type scale. Yeah. And I I'll that's really good. Um I'm glad you brought that up. So, there are there are a few areas that we're looking at that do have some industrial zoning and so that's the intent of this is to make sure that that heavy ind more heavy industrial doesn't isn't per permitted on that corridor. So, um, yeah, I think it with these kind of things, it it it's all down to the definitions. Um and so we need to take a deep dive to make sure that um we're not potentially precluding something that we we don't we would

I think along the lines of what the mayor [snorts] said also is that um on Kern Street just off of Stimson there's a glass art glass blowing uh studio there that um you know is I think is what is the kind of thing that the mayor is talking about in terms of making sure that you know that kind of thing which you know which I think works well because people walk to it and do you know do you know do blow glass do different kinds of things you know right now I think there's a they have a big business uh producing Christmas ornaments and things you know so it's but it's a really small scale compared to uh you know

an Libby glass or something like that or some bigger bigger you know uh or you know some more commercialized kind of thing and it may mean that we have to add a you land to use terms in the inter room. Um, but yeah, I I understand completely those comments. So, thank you for that. Did you have anything else that you wanted to talk before? No. Okay. Okay. Thanks. You're on.

You You've answered two of my questions, so I only have three more that I I think were probably just my needing clarification. So on the first section 23.0411 there is an item D that talks about additional overlay zones may be added by amendment and that has been struck through.

So is that if I'm understanding the process right this creates the definition but any group or area of the town that would come forward has to come forward to say we want to create an overlay zone. Is that correct? Uh well it wouldn't necessarily have to be that the residents formed a petition to bring it forward. The city could bring it forward but you are right on the process which is that the text would be adopted first and with the text adoption uh that does not mean it applies to anything yet.

Um the language that we struck through the interpretation of that is basically hey these are our current overlay zones. if you want to add more, you just have to revise the zoning code. That's kind of implied in how amendments to the zoning code work. So, I didn't feel like that language was necessary to call out cuz uh that's just how updating zoning code work. It just gives one the impression that amendments aren't possible, right? That is one thing that's really tricky about doing an overlay district just from a technical standpoint is a lot of times you're referring to something that's already in another section of the code.

So that is an area that we had comments about too is um there were a number of things that we didn't add a definition in the overlay because the definition is already somewhere else in the code.

Yeah. Okay. And and mayor Yes. I had the same thing about the printing. I thought, "Oh, does that mean Minute Man printing would be eliminated and that kind of thing." I don't know if Council Member Swank often refers to Asheville, North Carolina. I don't know if there are any artisan kind of sections that can help us define in terms of welding, sculpture, you know, then they may have some limitations because, you know, do you want somebody who's doing major building sculptures that are 30, 40t high, you know, maybe not that. Um, and I think that was it because the other ones have been answered. Thank you.

I would like to ask a question then about the uh building orientation on the uh overlay um uh zone. Um so it basically is talking about the uh buildings being oriented toward the street. Mhm. Um, you know, there's a I think there's a fairly good example of that uh of of a situation on Stimson where the orientation of the building is to the side and they brought the building all the way to the front um the retail space. Um, and you know, and from one side of the coin, I really like that. But the um but the other side of the coin, I go back to a slide you had with the open space where you showed this uh pocket park

that um went down and I thought, you know, is it pro would it be prohibitive to have entrances to small businesses on a pocket park like that? Um, and so I I just, you know, that just, you know, when I read that, I was wondering, you know, if if you'd have to go to the zoning board of appeals to try to do something more like that where, you know, you might have seating to sit outside and and drink a cup of coffee or or eat an ice cream or whatever. And so I, you know, I don't know. I ju just a thought I was I had when I was reading through these things last night. Um,

yeah. No, that's a very good point. Um the intent would not be to preclude that. So we might be able to say that anything that faces a public uh or a pocket park a public that would still be a public right of way if it were publicly deeded. Um of course if it were private that would be different. Yeah. I think that we would still expect that building to have an entryway along the street and not have to walk into that corridor in order to get to the front door. Um, meanwhile, that outdoor space can have access to it. We're definitely not saying that can't be provided. Um, and we wouldn't necessarily in the interpretation or application of the proposed overlay zone not allow that or

it just wouldn't be the primary entrance. And I think that's how we defined it. But what if you had a couple of businesses? Mhm. Then, you know, they wouldn't all have street entrances probably. Well, the way we phrase it is public rightway. And so if if that were a public open space, it would definitely not preclude that. If it were a private open space, that would that's probably I know it would still look neat, but I can see some problems with that should the private property owner exclude access to that entryway. Um, so it's kind of I know it's a little bit different context, but we work with some county governments where

um the uh the the there's no direct access to the street and and in some extreme cases there have been people who originally had an easement to get back to that property and then a new property owner came and said I'm not I'm not honoring that anymore. So you don't want a landlock. So my I guess my way of saying is if it were a public deed area then I think that would make sense but from a private standpoint you you could run into some problems with that.

So if if if I were a private land owner and wanted to try to do something like that I wouldn't be prohibited prohibited from going to the zoning board of appeals to try to make a case for that. And if I could solve any of the concerns the city might have, uh, would there be any reason why I couldn't do something like that? I I don't think there'd be any include a variance process from that. Yeah. No, I don't think so. But I do think the city would want to or my recommendation would be to make sure that

that access is uh a permanent thing, you know, because um landlocking anything boy in perpetuity can can be very problematic. [snorts] Another question I had was about uh how do the uh provisions for the tree commission apply to this? um you know because sometimes you can get a the demand for quite a bit of quite a few trees

and what we're [clears throat] trying to do it seems like is increase density and you know the pictures that show trees on the street are great but that wouldn't come close I don't think to meeting the demands of the shade tree commission. How does that fit in with this overlay zone? It would just still be the a similar problem. you just have to I don't know uh get you know bank trees or whatever it would take or is that um do you know the number of trees required per square foot on hand? It's high. Okay. Not off hand. I want to say it's like one tree for every 1700 square feet or something. I mean it's okay maybe less than that.

It's uh 1,500 and some for imperable surface and 17 for permeable surface. Yeah. I don't have the exact number, but

well, I I it's just a thought. I I just was thinking again, I'm just gone through a couple of And then another thing, you know, when I look at the um the uh the photographs you show of some of the developments where the buildings are to the street and they look, you know, there's they look very um the scale is great. You know, I I love the way that looks, but I saw no balconies. Um, can you under the overlay, is there any way to uh other than going through the zoning board of appeals to potentially add balconies to the second floor or you know uh or something like that and get over the rightway or not or or even canopies hanging off the building so that uh you have a dry area for your your dining or or whatever uh entry getting in uh quickly without

carrying in a lot of water. Anyway, go ahead.

Um, I'll say we're definitely not saying balconies can't be provided, but we do have that special use of the ride ofway issue sometimes with providing those types of um, projections. Um, one thing I guess to think about is if there is that 8ft sidewalk and um, you may have some wiggle room in front of your business before you formally hit the ride ofway to provide those types of uses without actually crossing into the ride ofway. Um, but if there is like a shallower depth there, uh, I think they would still currently as it's written be required to go to council for approval. But if you guys are interested in providing, um, a provision where that would no longer be required, I don't know how that would work with other sections of code, but we can definitely have that conversation.

Yeah. Well, I you know, I'm I'm actually more interested in being able to put a canopy off the building so that you've got some areas to sit outside or or whatever without uh and it be more of a permanent canopy, I guess. You know, a structural one, a structural one as opposed to just a canvas awning or something. I don't know what it would look like. Well, we do have that as as far as an entrance requirement. You could you have to do either recess entry, a canopy, or a porch. There is that provision that's in there. Now, that doesn't apply. We're not We're not We don't currently have anything in it about balconies versus not balconies, but there is a requirement for one of the three. Uhhuh. Yeah.

Yeah. [snorts] In new buildings. Did you have I have thoughts on that. Yeah. It's included in my questions. Okay. So, but I I don't want to That's all I have. I just wanted to So, my first my first question and and this is for the the whole [snorts] team. So in [clears throat] section uh D4 uh B1 we specifically say residential units on the first floor multi-port buildings of multifour buildings are prohibited and some of your your examples that you showed were like walk up down house street side residential right and so that line right there would prohibit it in any residential zone even if the underlying zone was like an R1 or an R2 or an R3.

That's correct. And that's by that's by design with what we want to do. And and you know, all of us have been thinking about Simpson Avenue, right, as we have been planning this, but we all know that there are other arterials that have a similar feel in the city. I specifically think about East State Street in between Uptown and US 33 where there's our one zone um for for that, you know, this could apply. If we were to try to apply this in order to achieve some goals in some of those locations, R1 or R2s or R3s, you know, along Lancaster as a as a location, um, in order to achieve some of these other goals, this prohibits it

and that's what we want. Is that correct? Well, I think the intent was on these multifloor um dwellings that the front the first floor would be prohibited, but I do understand your point was is is if it's overlaid on an R1, correct? Then it would prohibit it. So I think that's probably not the original intent. Uh so we would need to potentially That was the original intent.

Do you you want that? We had uh early conversations about the overlay zone and um trying to reduce just walls of residential along our corridors and really creating opportunities for small and local business development. And so this kind of addresses that concern by prohibiting where we have kind of incompatible residentially zoned properties on neighborhood corridors, encouraging that commercial use without requiring a zone change. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I'm just thinking about other places that we we intend to apply this and is that prohibition a barrier to getting a map adopted

in another place [clears throat] because all of the uses are first residential and we go boy it be great to put this on the corridor and so we immediately make everything non-conforming. Yeah and that's and I understand that concern definitely and that's why I was thinking through it. Um I mean I think that's that's potentially up for debate. I think the main thing I took away was that on these multifloor um buildings, we wouldn't want them to turn into multifamily. That was the main intent. Um but you do bring up a good point, which is that they're not so much the Stimson Avenue area, but other areas that we're thinking of that might have that R1.

Yeah. Um, and so I I you know I I I think um that that's a something we should have a further and it might not be a big [snorts] big deal because you know B3 you're already and and B2D and B2 and and B1 well not B1 but everywhere else residential is already not permitted on the first floor, right? So if you're trying to apply this thing on different different types of underlying zoning

um you would you would further restrict the R1 and R2 if you were to apply there and and there may not be very many places like that. So that's something I think we should we should think about. Second question that I have um talking about parking specifically. A few years ago we did a significant uh change to our parking regulations that reduced parking

um in um uh in the uh the the reductions that we um grant basically to our parking restrictions. If you're in an overlay zone, is that over and above the reductions that we did a few years ago or do these comport or they they work together with it? it would. Yeah. Um so the goal of reducing the required parking within the overlay zone um is to create that pedestrianoriented corridor. [clears throat] Um and so David mentioned earlier for existing buildings that the current off- streetet parking requirements [snorts] shall not apply. That just means that most likely those existing buildings have existing parking and if new use wants to go in that building, they can utilize that existing parking as provided and not have to provide more parking than what is currently there. Um the reductions that we are including is a 50% reduction for all new construction uh to our current off- streetet parking standards and then we are providing some additional reductions if they are in a certain distance to bus stops. uh 25% reduction within 500 feet of a bus stop and then like David mentioned earlier an additional 25% reduction off of that previous 25% reduction uh if they want to upgrade that bus stop to a shelter.

Gotcha. And so I I looked at the when we were doing this I looked at what is in the current codified code. So as long as the new requirements are in the codified code then my answer would be yes. We're looking at it from a reduction of what the new even with the as drafted today. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And along [snorts] the lines um specifically under parking for new buildings, it talks about parking in the back shall be in the back. Would we prohibit off-site parking? So, you could do off-site parking to meet your parking requirements. So, it's just if you're going to put it on the site, it's not in the front or the side. It's got to be in the back. Okay. Yeah. No, that's correct. That's correct.

We may need to that that may be something we add a sentence in to just I think it's I think it would be interpreted that way but it can't hurt to add a I mean there's a lot of places in our denser areas where people's parking are offsite. Um and then the last thing I got is is um you already answered the question on sidewalks about if there's not enough room for the 8 ft but um the uh the signage and the projecting signs. Help me, Lance, with um existing sign regulations and projecting signs. Um are they permitted or they are allowed one one? They're allowed one. And so this is a similar thing. We're just trying to encourage uh that in this zone. Um and those can go into the rightway. Yes.

The projecting signage under the existing without a title 49. Correct. In this case, we're saying that we want to do canopies. Um, uh, and the canopies, uh, to your point about balconies and canopies, um, and this might be something we we look at, um, is do we want to like bake something into this so that you don't have to get a title 49, um, special use of the rideway permit if you are complying with one of these provisions that say you must have, you know, a canopy or something else. So that you can you basically have a have an entitlement to use a portion of the rideway in a without having to to go before city council.

Yeah. No, I think that's a you know we we work with many jurisdictions where you don't have to go to city council to get that as long as you meet certain standards. Um so it's kind of a shift to that which would say if you if you are applying for new building and you meet these standards then you can be granted. you're exempted from the title 49 requirements whether it be for a balcony or a sign or a canopy or or what have you so long as you meet the things that might be something we want to look like. Yeah. No, I I think that's an excellent idea. We it's a little nuance but but it's similar. We've done that with other communities. I'll say that.

You know, I mean one of the reasons you do zoning and say these are the standards is so people like if they can meet those standards they don't have to go through a bunch of process. Yeah, that is one of our big points and you know we talked about that in the code audit is there things we can definitely uh reduce procedurally and still get the same standards for the city. So that's a great example of one to to potentially look at. So those are all my questions. Does uh anybody else here on the commission have any quality? Would you have any questions?

Most of my questions have been answered. I do think we should um give more consideration to residential units. While I do understand why um residential units they where the idea is to prohibit those in this type of area. I would uh I want to be cautious about rem removing housing or creating a lot of non-conforming uses. Um and then the idea of we know that there are houses on you know Columbus Road or Stimpson Avenue those single family homes. Um creating the requirement for them to put in or maintain an 8ft sidewalk where there is currently a smaller or no sidewalk could be on those folks. Sure. Sure. Okay. Yes. Miss Daniel,

I had an idea during the discussions about the prohibited use conversation. Um, we could simply add a maximum square footage allowed for these types of uses. Whereas, if they're larger than that, they would then be prohibited. So, that creates like a natural scale. Rather than having to define it differently or create a new land use, we could put a maximum size requirement on that. Yeah. Not a bad idea at all. Yeah. That's that that's definitely a good idea to look at. I still want to look back at the definition and see how they're defined today um on a few of those industrial which I I did get that comment last night but I haven't had a chance to delve into that.

Um but those are kind of your two options based on what that actual definition is. I agree with Megan. It may just be that you have to have a scale with it. It says it's permitted if it's under this size prohibitive if over. Okay. Anything else? Lance, do you have anything? No. Okay. Um, so, um, thank you very much, David. Uh, is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak, uh, to any discussion we've had today or anything about the text, uh, and the overlay zone? Okay. Name and address, please. I'm Rob Delich. I live at 124 Morris Avenue here in the city of Athens, which is a block over from Stimson Avenue. So, um, my section of the neighborhood would definitely be directly impacted by this this proposal, especially if it ends up being applied to Stimson, which seems like that's likely since that was where we started with from this discussion. Um, I uh wholeheartedly endorse this effort. Uh, I think it's uh it's going really well. I like what I see already. Uh, the questions I had have all been answered partly last night at the meeting, but also some of the questions you all asked u help clarify some things. I was wondering about too. So, excellent effort on your part to get into some of the details. Um, I think a couple tweaks like we talked about maybe make some sense, but uh I don't have any real critiques. Um, I do want to say that um parking can be a controversial topic uh car parking that is. And um you know if there's a little overflow into the neighborhoods uh for temporary use for because somebody's at a restaurant that's on the main drag there um in this new commercial overlay district. Um I think that that is a small price to pay for these improvements. And so I'm not even really concerned about potentially

some people parking on Morris Avenue. Uh you know because maybe there is not a lot of parking available on Stimson. And honestly, right now there is not. Um, but I would like to see those improved uses and uses that benefit the neighborhood. And if, uh, having some overflow parking is part of that, uh, I think that's perfectly fine. Um, I do like the reduction in the parking requirements that we see here and, um, honestly, I feel that, uh, anybody building, uh, a new building is going to be conscious of the needs of their customers and, uh, requiring them to have parking. maybe not even the right answer. Um requiring them not to have too much might be the the other approach. Um a maximum limit in other words. Uh but generally I think it makes sense to let the market and the business decide what they really need for their customers rather than imposing requirements on them to provide parking. Um the one little thing that was just mentioned about providing off-site parking or parking behind the business. Um, one thing I think should be considered here if it's not already somehow built in is allowing a public parking space to be leveraged in some way to meet a requirement. So, for example, there's been talk about the idea of maybe a centralized parking structure on Stimson or some some of these other places like what we have right across the street here, probably smaller scale obviously. Um but uh if something like that were to happen, having that as available space to meet parking requirements in some way I think would make some sense. So if there is public parking available in quantity nearby, I think that should be okay and maybe then parking requirements could be waved completely.

Um so in other words, I want to take it the other direction. Um and even potentially even eliminate parking requirements. Certainly reducing them or making them as flexible as possible for the business would be a good idea. I think that's thank you my comments. Thank you very much.

Okay. Any other discussion? Any other comments from the community? Okay. Um well it you know so as I said at the beginning this is it's listed as a case that we could vote on. My recommendation, I don't know what the rest of the commission would feel, is that that we ought to make some further adjustments before we actually vote on this. And so, um, we we'll just basically term this as a communication today and, um, and then we'll take a look at it in two weeks again if that works.

Mr. Chair, I would ask if if there's any other questions from from Megan, especially from the body u that you need from a guidance perspective that probably should be asked publicly. I mean certainly you can talk to all of us you know in addition to this before the next meeting but like if you need clarification on some of the comments um please ask and then that way we because I I'd like to see this passed next time we meet. Honestly they've done a ton of work and I don't want to just keep pushing it down the road.

I will. Um I you know I I think it would be good to have a general conversation about where you got where you as a group are on parking. um just so that we kind of have a good understanding uh on that item. Um that's come up um but it didn't come up in the question. So I do think it'd be worthwhile to have that. [clears throat]

I have a I have a response s um so you know historically with Athens the you know we get wrapped around the axle about residential parking in the more dense areas and um our BTD you know all there is no parking requirement for businesses. Uh so to Mr. Glock's point about uh you know the park central parking structure in the BTD um no businesses have to have parking because there's a parking garage. And I think you know that's a similar situation about what we're talking about. But I think the big concern where parking requirements apply is when you have second and third story residential and the people have a car. If there's no parking associated with that particular use on the second and third floor um

you know where do they put it now? Yeah, things have changed from the 1980s when a lot of these things went in where everybody brought a car when they came to Athens and now there's less so. So, it's less of a concern, but that's historically where the concern has been. I don't know from the rest of the members here whether or not, you know, we should just, you know, say, "Hey, look, we're not as concerned about that." I mean, certainly the changes we made a few years ago reduced the number of parking spaces per unit um for like apartment units um and you know, we went in that direction and haven't seen a problem. So,

well, we'll ask. So, well, two things I would say. Um, to to what Rob had stated about uh potentially some overflow parking falling to uh Morris Avenue, there have been a number of occasions where I've gone to uh Jackie's tap room and there has uh you know, the the parking lot is full and and I've bled over into the side streets there to be able to park and walk back over to Jackie O's. And so, so I'm, you know, I I think that uh I think it's a it's a good price to pay, but you know, the and the other thing that I mentioned last night that I'd like to say is, you know, with regard to parking, you know, there's um the city now is leasing parking spaces out at the the pool for uh you know, some kind of long-term storage parking. And uh obviously they've been doing it for year. It's been done for years at the fairgrounds. I now see over at the uh the train station uh where uh the old train station on Stimson where I would hope I was hoping that some business might at some time go in there and that building could be used as a restaurant or whatever and there would be more outside seating and things but now it's full of parking and so um I I think um although maybe there are less cars in town it seems like to me there are more cars in town today um but many of them are probably just here because they need to be get they need to get back to Cleveland or to Cincinnati, you know, on a on a weekend or at the end of a a semester or whatever. And so many may be that case that it's largely just storage and so as long as we're accommodating them, that's fine. I I guess my my sense is that um I I just want to try to protect the neighbors and the our community and make sure that uh you know so many so many car so many houses and things don't have off- streetet parking and you know I just that's my only

concern and I trust you folks as a um as as a planner and and you know and as our uh our city uh you know our city guide uh and both the both uh the the code office as well as uh the planning office uh to help us make good decisions here as well as our city.

One thing I would and I said this last night and I don't know if the city's done this but I do want to bring this up the public forum. I've worked with a number of cities that have very successfully uh put in signage uh for where public parking is. And I've worked with a lot of cities that have little small pockets. And I don't know that the situation for Athens, but they've done a a really when they've when they have reduced parking requirements, they've also increased um making people aware of where those public spaces are because uh and again I I haven't looked at this for Athens, but I I know from working at a number of different cities that when they after they did that, even people that lived there for years were shocked at how many different spaces they had that they could actually park. I mean, the the the parking garage is the obvious one. Everyone kind of sees that, but a lot of times they're little small lots that are underutilized. Um, so I don't know if you've ever taken a approach to take a map or to do something like that to map that all out, make it more publicly available. But that is one approach that cities take when they reduce parking is to proactively uh let people know where those places are. That makes sense.

You know, one thing that's unique to Athens is our 24-hour continuous parking restriction on on city streets. And so, um, you know, we've got a very strong enforcement mechanism to keep people from, um, staying in one spot for more than 24 hours. It's annoying in some places, but the entire reason for it is to prohibit storage parking on residential streets. Sure. And it's worked. It it it absolutely has worked. And so, you know, it may be that it's not that big a deal to reduce the requirements because, you know, that that risk of storage parking is is addressed by that particular.

Yeah. And that's something that came up last night. We had someone who was a a student that mentioned that, which was the only, you know, I I I have a car here because not because I drive it around town, but because I have to have it when I leave town, you know, and it just sits there. Um, so there I think there are a lot of people that are in that boat. Just to clarify, my comments were more were not the on street parking but the off- streetet parking locations that um it is amazing to me and again it does it's not every city but I have seen some cities very successfully a take a proactive approach to advertising where some little small pockets of public parking are that were very much underutilized and it went well with the parking reduction. So just throw that out there as an idea.

I you know so I I think that um you know to to to what uh to what Mr. Stone stated about uh about above residential I mean a lot of the you know if regardless of where this overlay zone gets placed but we have been talking as uh Mr. Delich said with regard to the Stimson Avenue corridor, you know, and a lot of that development, if it's going to happen, is going to depend upon the second, third, maybe the fourth floors uh and the residential there to to make it make economic sense for them to try to do it. And you know, and um and so,

you know, I have I have a similar concern about making sure we know how we take care of them. I don't but I I'm I'm comfortable with the idea of trying to reduce parking. I don't I don't sense in any of the uh discussions I've had with community members that I've been around that they're uncomfortable with doing something like that. The most of the time most of the time I feel like people feel like over the years we've just demanded too much space to parking. Um you know and so anyway that's my thought about Great. Great. Okay. What was that? Megan has a point.

I just had an additional um uh thing to mention was that the go bus just this fall expanded their service to Toledo in Pittsburgh and they're all connected around the state. So, I'm sure as students get to learn about that amenity and see it's only $10. Um like I just recently took it up to Columbus. Um, and now I can take it all the way home to my parents house in Toledo if I wanted to go on a trip. So, that's a great amenity and they are continually looking at expanding service and make it a more reliable form of transportation especially for students.

Yeah. And that's great. I I don't think the person who made the comment last night was he would be aware of that because I mean his comment was literally that's why I have a car is to leave town not to be in town. So, okay. Yeah. Great, great comment. [snorts] And and I would say the the uh promotion and encouragement of things like that that are alternatives. That's really what I'm getting at with what I'm talking about with mapping it is that if there are new services, hey, let really let people know that as part of this. Okay. Thank you.

Um so the last thing I'll add is we will create what we call a redlinined version based on the comments that we've heard and the clarifications. Um, I'm not sure timeline uh how if if it's possible for the next meeting, but it might be it might be early January. I was looking at the schedule. The next scheduled planning commission meeting is January 7th. And with the holidays next week, I'm not sure that we'll have enough in office time to really get those revisions made for that January 7th meeting. So, we may look to come back to you all for the January 21st meeting if that's okay with you guys.

Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thanks for clarifying on that. Okay. Um the next then then uh Mr. Stone, would you like to this we're going to communications now. So you're up. Yeah, sure. And then anybody else who has

the one item was um related to the minutes that um we approved for the um title 41 that approved for H White and the annex or the um the development off of uh theater lane at the end of Columbus Road. Um just a a strange nuance. One of the things we required was annexation. And um one of the considerations during that that annexation proceeding as the as the um attorney supporting UI went to the county commissioners is um the uh a concern about road maintenance for Theater Lane. Uh because Theater Lane is technically a township road and there's a really strange uh aspect of that and that it's built on ODOT rightway. you know, was built there as part of the original, um, construction of the US 33 interchange at the end of Columbus Road. And so, uh, what we did is a way to get beyond that because for all intents and purposes, all the properties, they're front on the lane. They're all in the city. Um, and then you just have one portion of of roadway that is a township road serving a bunch of city properties. And so we worked through a a plan to um do a an agreement between the city and the township where the city would take over maintenance um uh for theater land without annexing theater land. And the reason for that is because it's part of the ODOT limited access parcel and splitting that parcel would probably take an act of Congress. I don't know exactly, but it's a pretty significant heavy lift. And so um that would be something that we'll take to council um here after the first of the year. uh the approval of that agreement or to enter into that agreement. Um it's it's just a strange nuance about about um um about that portion of the city. And so functionally we'll treat for all intents and purposes theater lane as a city street if that passes.

And that allow the annexation to go forward. So good. Okay. Good. Um are there any other communications? Um Megan or Lance? No. Uh, I'll just mention that I'll make all of the resources about the neighborhood corridor overlay zone available online. We do currently have the public engagement summary report and data report as well as previous presentations available online, but I will get the draft language um, as well as the additional input that we received last night available online and link to this meeting and the presentation slides. So, good. Lance, did you have anything? I have anything? Um, I had a question. Okay. And this is about

I think I'm calling it the right place, the Avenel U division or a proposal that we thought was not needing to come through here. We thought it was not part of subdivision, but I think has now been ruled. So, uh, part of it and it would need to probably come back here. So, I'm wondering if we had any updates on that. I haven't heard anything other than we told them that they were going to have to go through the major subdivision process. M okay. Okay. Okay. We may have something on the 7th. Who knows? We'll see what happens there. Okay.

Okay. Um so and so does that also there's no reports I would assume because that's kind of Okay. So is there anybody in the uh audience who would like to speak to anything that was not on the agenda today? Seeing no nobody stepping up or uh hands raised. I uh will then um indicate that or or look at the opportunity list um to I guess I'll look for an a motion to adjurnn I guess at this point. So moved.

So moved by uh Chris and seconded by Mr. Stone. All all fa in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, we're journed. Thank you.